check_burp_connectivity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the tool validates configuration and performs a simple request, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or what specific connectivity failures look like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the core purpose (testing connectivity), and the second clarifies the mechanism (config validation and simple request), making it appropriately front-loaded for a no-argument utility function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does without needing to explain return values. A minor gap is the lack of error scenario documentation, but this is sufficient for a health check utility.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool tests connectivity to the Burp REST API and distinguishes itself from scanning-focused siblings (scan_urls_for_vulnerabilities, cancel_scan, etc.) by specifying it validates configuration and performs a simple request rather than actual security testing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description implies this is a diagnostic/health check tool, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it (e.g., 'use before scanning operations' or 'call when troubleshooting connection issues') or sequencing relative to the other Burp suite tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.